I think the point that even the President's Panel on Tax Reform says that it would raise taxes on the middle class and create the largest expansion of government entitlement in history proves that this is a bad idea.

The flat tax will never pass...it wouldn't even get out of committee, let alone onto the floor of congress.

I win

12/2/2007 12:04:02 AM

Quote :

"Plus, if everyone started saving their money instead of spending, it would be disastrous to business, which would also be disastrous to our stock market and also slow economic growth."

Given the fact that Americans on average currently have a negative savings rate, I hardly somehow think that an NST is going to suddenly bring the economy to a halt from an increase in savings. Specious argument.

12/2/2007 12:30:56 AM

Good post earthdogg

Quote :

"create the largest expansion of government entitlement in history proves that this is a bad idea. "

My god WTF are you talking about? How did you even come to that?

Keep spouting the shift the taxes to the middle class line all you want, but your math is still off. If ANYONE buys more, and more expensive items they pay more taxes. Got it? So, the taxes on a civic would be considerable less of the taxes on a ferrari. So the rich still pay more? So all will still be well in your world of "wealth is bad".

Most people think the cost of goods will be about the same. Couple that with talking home your income and not having to pay accountants... whats not to like? Well, other than the prebate.

12/2/2007 12:33:17 AM

Could you explain how goods will cost about the same?

12/2/2007 12:37:35 AM

^^ do you even read previous posts?

^ gas would instantly go over $4 a gallon under a "fairtax"

12/2/2007 12:45:05 AM

^^ The theory is that lower overall taxes through the supply chains and increased spending by consumers would allow companies to pass on savings to the consumer, IIRC>

12/2/2007 12:51:28 AM

Sounds like trickle down economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

12/2/2007 12:55:12 AM

^why stop at 4 dollars? I hear it will go to 20.

But the rich will get a free gas card paid for by the "middle class".

spooky, this is from the book: While the cost of goods will drop due to the embedded taxes being removed from the production price, this will be offset by the tax itself. The end result is that the real cost of goods to the consumer will remain pretty well constant. Although, since you're actually taking home your whole paycheck, that cost as a share of your income will decrease.


Basically, there are already embedded taxes on the goods you purchase. Thought to be close to 23%. These are basically the taxes the business pays to get the goods to market. So lets use round numbers for easy math. Right now best buy has a TV 1000 bucks. So the thought of it is the cost of the prodcut-taxes is really 750. So that is 250 worth of taxes best buy doesnt pay anymore. However the price wont be set at 750. The difference will be offset by the tax itself just in an easier, more managable way. So the price WITH tax would be right back to 1000.

Where it saves alot of money is in eliminating the IRS and eliminating the need for loop holes, tax deductions, shelters, etc. Its just a simple fairer tax.

12/2/2007 12:59:44 AM

Quote :

"Basically, there are already embedded taxes on the goods you purchase. Thought to be close to 23%. These are basically the taxes the business pays to get the goods to market. So lets use round numbers for easy math. Right now best buy has a TV 1000 bucks. So the thought of it is the cost of the prodcut-taxes is really 750. So that is 250 worth of taxes best buy doesnt pay anymore. However the price wont be set at 750. The difference will be offset by the tax itself just in an easier, more managable way. So the price WITH tax would be right back to 1000."

I remember when the same argument was made about real estate development. Hiring undocumented workers would lower the price for consumers, making housing more affordable. Guess what? Prices only continued going up and whatever savings that should have been passed on to consumers ended up going into developers pockets. So the argument that a flat tax would lower the price of goods is wishful thinking and I severely doubt it will happen.

[Edited on December 2, 2007 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2007 1:17:01 AM

ah yes. Housing market= flat tax. very good arguement.

Lets see housing prices went up due to low interest rates/sub prime loans and a shitton of people buying houses. Its a classic example of a theory called supply and demand. Now that demand is down, so are housing prices in some areas.

What you fail to realize is competition. If one business keeps the prices high, people will shop at another business. Its also why we move plants overseas so they can provide americans with those cheap goods we love so much.

Oh I also forgot to add the price of lumber going up 3x from demand for the rebuilds after the hurricanes.

[Edited on December 2, 2007 at 1:25 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2007 1:21:59 AM

^ what I was talking about started long before the recent real estate boom. The real estate speculation only accentuated the trend.

[Edited on December 2, 2007 at 2:17 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2007 2:17:23 AM

Quote :

"I severely doubt it will happen."

Rep John Linder, the sponsor of the FairTax bill, said that a major retailer told him that if the FairTax passed they would immediately lower prices 23%.

Some may think that "greedy" manufacturers will keep the embedded savings...but competition will fix that thinking right away. A few years ago, a special airline tax expired, it took about an hour before airlines started lowering prices.

12/2/2007 11:39:54 AM

If Huckabee wins the nomination, I'll vote for whichever Democrat is running, no matter who it is (even Edwards!). That guy is absolutely the worst. By supporting such a dark horse populist loser, the GOP will make its own decline a self-fulfilling prophecy. And if the country elects him, we will make our own decline a self-fulfilling prophecy. And don't even get me started on the "minister vs. the mullahs" situation we're asking for in world affairs.

In my view Huckabee gets by on "aw shucks" extemporaneous homilies and these play very well in debates, especially to religious crowds so given to aphorisms. But they don't make for policy statements or serious leadership.

At any rate, good to see the Republican party has renewed its vows for fiscal conservatism.

12/4/2007 3:31:11 AM

Plus he's got a son who was recently described as "what would happen if Billy Carter ate Roger Clinton" who was arrested earlier this year for carrying a loaded handgun through airport security.

Plus the whole thing with releasing a convicted rapist who shortly thereafter murdered somebody else.

12/4/2007 9:20:08 AM

The only problem I have with the fairtax is that we are not protected from the comeback of the taxes it was supposed to replace.

If we went with it, and even if all went swimmingly, 10 years later we'd have a 23% sales tax (or more), and a whole lot of those imbedded taxes raised from the grave.

12/4/2007 10:08:32 AM

I think you would have to outlaw the current taxes and the income tax before anyone would agree with a federal sales tax of any sort...well most people.

12/4/2007 10:19:23 AM

^
True eyedrb.

The legislation would be organized so the FairTax would go into effect when the 16th amendment was repealed. And how much fun would it be to see that happen? The income tax is our economic Berlin wall...and it's time to bring that wall down.

Quote :

"we'd have a 23% sales tax (or more), and a whole lot of those imbedded taxes raised from the grave."

No matter what tax system you have, it is up to the people to watch those wascally politicians from messing with it. With the FairTax, it will become evident very quickly when the 23% rate starts going up.

12/4/2007 10:25:21 AM

I never would have expected it when I started this thread, but the Huck is 1st nationally among Republicans according to a new Rasmussen poll:

Quote :

"For the first time, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has taken the lead among the Republican field in a national poll. The Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll released Wednesday showed the former Arkansas governor with 20 percent, compared with Rudy Giuliani at 17 percent. Even though Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney have played strong in early voting states like Iowa, Giuliani has led the field in practically every national poll since the race began."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315264,00.html

12/5/2007 2:11:22 PM

eyedrb if income taxes were eliminated would this also eliminate corporate profit tax??

12/5/2007 2:14:59 PM

It's that Christian Conservative movement going to work.

12/5/2007 2:22:05 PM

I do not understand the Mike Huckabee hype. He seems like just another run of the mill tool of the neo-con crowd.

Mike Huckabee
abortion: Opposes abortion rights.

Awesome another candidate pandering to the religious right and wants to delegate morals to help turn us into the United State of Jesus.

Immigration: Supports Bush-backed immigration plan that provides a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Believes some Republican plans to deport illegal immigrants are "unworkable."

ok; i'll accept this. I actually support Bush's immigration policy. Regardless it has been nice that opinions on immigration haven't stuck to party lines like many other issues.

Iraq:
Has offered qualified support for Bush Iraq policy, saying the president has access to military and diplomatic information that is not publicly available. Opposes congressional resolutions that express opposition to the president's plan to increase the number of American troops in Iraq. Opposes proposals to cut funding for the war.

Major blow to this guy in my opinion. I completely disagree with our reasons for going in Iraq and anyone that supports it. At this point we shouldn't just "pull the plug" but we do need to get out of this financial blackhole and foreign policy nightmare. I oppose any candidate who will enter the white house with the same war hawk fear mongering rhetoric as bush.

Same-sex marriage
Opposes same-sex marriage.

Who gives a fuck. A non-issue used to draw attention from stuff that really does matter.

Taxes:
Supports a "FairTax" plan.

If a fair tax means a flat tax with a standard deduction available for necessities of citizens in ALL income brackets then i am down.

HealthCare: Would encourage private sector innovation to reduce health care costs.

I do not necessarily support Universal Health Care for everyone and everything. The healthcare industry does though need a overhaul and needs to be fixed. Merely "encouraging" sounds like a bullshit answer and basically implying keeping the status queue. Sounds like huckabee is just playing lip service w/o getting heat

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mike.huckabee.html


[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM. Reason : a]

12/5/2007 2:25:10 PM

btw

Ron Paul 08

12/5/2007 2:30:40 PM

Hur you can read up on the fairtax. It would eliminate all federal taxes. ALL except the new sales tax.

Look Roe v Wade should never been overturned, and it wont. Repubs need it to be thier issue. Kinda like class warfare for the dems. However, I would be happy with restrictions on it. IE if its your 3rd abortion, you get your tubes tied. And I 100% agree with late term abortion ban. For those that they will overturn roe, they are either fear mongering or just lying to get elected.

And Im against gay "marriage", but all for civil unions. No way should a church be forced to marry a couple if the church is against it. However, you should be able to share benefits between a partner if you choose to get a union under the law.

12/5/2007 2:35:13 PM

Quote :

"No way should a church be forced to marry a couple if the church is against it. "

I 100% agree w/ you since its a private orgainzation.
Kinda like how i support gays banned from boy scouts etc.

I think its still a non-issue. The term "marriage" is just Etymology. I think the gays are more concerned about the financial and legal benefits of marriage then putting on a white dress, prancing down the aisle, and have flower pedals thrown at them as the leave the church to go play butt darts on the honey moon

12/5/2007 2:50:05 PM

Quote :

"IE if its your 3rd abortion, you get your tubes tied."

i hope you're joking.

Quote :

"And Im against gay "marriage", but all for civil unions. No way should a church be forced to marry a couple if the church is against it. However, you should be able to share benefits between a partner if you choose to get a union under the law."

and who is pushing to force churches to do anything?

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2007 2:51:52 PM

^just a matter of time before the discrimination suits occur. You know it will


No, im not joking about getting the tubes tied. I also think they should force birth control in order to get your welfare checks. If you cant afford to feed or house yourself, you dont need another mouth. But thats a different discussion.

12/5/2007 2:56:30 PM

getting the government involved in forced medical procedures seems terrible.

also, suing churches to do specific religious ceremonies is (as far as i know) completely unprecedented.

12/5/2007 3:21:27 PM

yeah no shit^^

the worst part is odds are her daughters are much more likely to be welfare moms to. We are paying to keep a perpetual cycle of leeches going in our society and after factoring in high fertility their is probably a net increase.

Last time i was at taco bell a woman no older then 40 came in with her trashy looking family and the oldest daughter who at most was 15-17 already had a baby in hand and another in the oven. Something tells me this teen mom is not a hard working member of society providing 100% support for her kids.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 3:22 PM. Reason : a]

12/5/2007 3:21:58 PM

sarijoul, why? I think some of the trash that have multiple abortions are able to do so bc they are on some state assistance as is. Its why forcing birth control before you pick up your check is a good idea.

12/5/2007 3:30:39 PM

because the government shouldn't get involved in forcing medical procedures (save vaccinations/quarantine for illnesses dangerous to others)

12/5/2007 3:38:09 PM

Quote :

""And Im against gay "marriage", but all for civil unions. No way should a church be forced to marry a couple if the church is against it. However, you should be able to share benefits between a partner if you choose to get a union under the law.""

To be fair to the other side, there are churches out there that do marry same-sex couples. The Unitarian Church I know does. So should a church be forced to not marry a couple?

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2007 3:42:43 PM

yeah my mom's church in greensboro (united methodist) married a lesbian couple recently

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2007 3:49:53 PM

Quote :

"No way should a church be forced to marry a couple if the church is against it."

I don't know if you're the same person that's espoused this as a possibility in the past, but it is so fucking stupid it could just about kill me. I don't want to waste my time or anybody else's going into the full reasons WHY it is so stupid, but for starters, find me one case where the Catholic church, for example, or some other group that exercises some religious measure of standards in marrying people, has lost a lawsuit and been forced to marry two atheists.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the root of the problem lies in the fact that one word--"marriage"--is used to define two things which are completely different: one, a personal commitment, and two, a legal commitment. As long as people are going to get their panties in a twist about allowing people who aren't just like themselves to get married, the government should only give recognition to one thing--civil unions--and leave the marriage bit to whatever crazy church, coven, atheist club, or whatever people feel the need to take part in.

12/5/2007 4:35:09 PM

Quote :

"I think some of the trash that have multiple abortions are able to do so bc they are on some state assistance as is. Its why forcing birth control before you pick up your check is a good idea. "

yeah it is such bullshit that the scum of America gets rewarded for having babies they can not afford.
Pop out another child and bam! you get a "raise" b.c she has more mouths to "feed." I guess
technically their job is breed and raise more ignorant unproductive Americans. Ideally
welfare checks would be capped for allocation for two kids. A short term solution for a program
I already fundamentally disagree with since instead of using as a safety net too many Americans
use welfare as a hammock. This does a few things..

a. Takes away incentive to pump out more babies since they will no longer receive a "raise"
b. Even if they have more babies this will encourage them to work since they will receive no more money and if they neglect thier
kids social services will step in.
c. With less incentive to have kids; hopefully this will snowball the decline of societies unfavorables (lack of work ethic, stupidity, laziness, lack of class, NOT RACE) since the apple tends
to not fall far from the tree


I also think dependency exemptions should be capped to 2 children maybe 3. Additional
exemptions could then be allocated for adults who take care of their parents/inlaws (possibly taking pressure off of SSN)
, if one of their children is mentally or physically disabled, or if they remarry. Thus allowing every parent tax benefits for the first two replacement kids and
not rewarding people for having litters. Even for middle and upper class Americans if you CHOOSE to have children; then that is a
choice you make. You know the costs involved. Kind of like how if I CHOOSE to buy two cars then I know I will have to pay more car
payments/car taxes/etc. Nothing if fair about the increasingly more tax exemptions families get (remember the woman in Nebraska with 16 kids).
I should not be forced to subsidize this bitch's family b.c she and her husband want to breed like rabbits.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 5:29 PM. Reason : a]

12/5/2007 5:28:32 PM

Quote :

" Reporter: I don’t know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday … Huckabee: I’m sorry? Reporter: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it – Huckabee: No. Reporter: Have you heard of the finding? Huckabee: No."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1207/Huckabee_not_aware_of_NIE_report_on_Iran.html

12/5/2007 7:54:16 PM

spooky, I think you are being pretty short sided to not see the obvious implications.

Oh here is a link of a couple that sued a church... imagine that. NO NEVER happen here though.

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/050209lesbian

"They claim they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation."

Foolish to think that americans would try to sue for big money, over the big D word. Discrimination.

Ryan, no way should a church be force NOT to "marry" a gay couple if that church decides its ok. My problem is sueing the ones who are against it for discrimination..which no doubt will happen.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2007 8:18:48 PM

from the same blog:

Quote :

"Kuhn then summarized the NIE finding that Iran had stopped work on a clandestine nuclear program four years ago and asked if it “adjusts your view on Iran in any sense." Kuhn: What is your concern on Iran as of now? Huckabee: I’ve a serious concern if they were to be able to weaponize nuclear material, and I think we all should, mainly because the statements of Ahmadinejad are certainly not conducive to a peaceful purpose for his having it and the fear that he would in fact weaponize it and use it. (He pauses and thinks) I don’t know where the intelligence is coming from that says they have suspended the program or how credible that is versus the view that they actually are expanding it. … And I’ve heard, the last two weeks, supposed reports that they are accelerating it and it could be having a reactor in a much shorter period of time than originally been thought. Kuhn: Does the United States face a higher burden of proof on Iran in light of Iraq, in the international community? Huckabee: Probably so. First time I’ve been asked a question like that. But I think probably so because there is going to be a real anxiety for us to take any type of action without there being some very credible and almost irrefutable intelligence to validate our decision. Kuhn: And then on the flip side of that. a conservative concern might be, does the United States, might they hedge, might they be timid from taking necessary aggressive action due to the failures of intelligence on Iraq, and our failures in Iraq itself? Huckabee: I think that’s a possibility as well. And that would be unfortunate if we actually knew we needed to take action but were fearful of doing so because of getting burned in the Iraq situation. That would be a serious challenge for us."

At least it sounds like he can think on his feet. His responses show some thought on the matter, rather than some nonsense about consulting with lawyers like Romney said in a debate.

12/5/2007 8:20:00 PM

Quote :

"They claim they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation"

That is such bullshit it is a private organization. As long as they do not take public funds then private organizations should be able to choose who and who not to let in and use their resources. I am 100% for civil rights but from a pure civil liberty standpoint if Ming's Diner wants to be "for asians only" that should be his conviction. The gov't has no place saying who you have to let in your institution/business and thus set precedence for any civil case to be thrown out b.c no laws state you have the right to access any business you choose.

Fuck those Lezboz; they do not own equity in the church and as far as I know no public funds go into the church. Therefore they should have no grounds to sue the church for not allowing a lesbian wedding. On the CONVERSE if say Reynolds was open to couples for wedding and the NCSU administration denied two lesbians to get married there then they may have a case.

12/5/2007 9:52:37 PM

Quote :

"spooky, I think you are being pretty short sided to not see the obvious implications. Oh here is a link of a couple that sued a church... imagine that. NO NEVER happen here though. http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/050209lesbian "They claim they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation." Foolish to think that americans would try to sue for big money, over the big D word. Discrimination. Ryan, no way should a church be force NOT to "marry" a gay couple if that church decides its ok. My problem is sueing the ones who are against it for discrimination..which no doubt will happen. "

With regards to the linked item, the couple were, in the end, rewarded $1000 plus reimbursement of expenses only because of the way in which the Knights chose to handle the situation. From the written judgment:

Quote :

"The Knights could have taken steps such as meeting with the complainants to explain the situation, formally apologizing, immediately offering to reimburse the complainants for any expenses they had incurred and, perhaps, offering assistance in finding another solution," the tribunal said in a written decision."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/tribunal_lesbiancouple_051129/20051129?hub=Canada
They were reimbursed for their expenses and won their case because the organization had voluntarily entered into a legally contract with the couple. The Knights of Columbus then reneged on the contract, offering no compensation for the expenses incurred due to the cancellation. The judgment ruled specifically that the Knights could have refused to rent the women their hall--the problem was that they rented the hall to them, entered into a contract with them, AND THEN went back on their word.

Furthermore, the case in question has nothing to do with a church being forced to perform a wedding ceremony. It was a Catholic church affiliated organization which rents a space to the public on a regular basis. This is not even remotely the same thing.

Finally, leaving aside the fact that this happened in an entirely different country, anybody can sue anybody for anything at any time. I could sue you right now for any-goddamn-thing and you could sue me for the same. Thank god we have judges and juries to take care of stupid shit like that.

Also, I'm sorry you think my sides are short.

12/5/2007 10:01:39 PM

^right. The fact that the church didnt want anything to do with them bc they were gay had NO bearing on them cancelling thier reception.

12/5/2007 10:09:08 PM

I'm not sure how to respond to somebody who clearly either didn't read my post or didn't understand it.

12/5/2007 10:14:15 PM

Ok. spooky. Using your example, how I understand it.

Why cant a Chris and Kim book a wedding, enter a contract. Then when it turns out Chris is a girl and its a gay wedding. THey can now sue for discrimination. savy?

sorry about the savy. Ive been watching alot of Pirates waiting for the 3rd to come out.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 10:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2007 10:16:38 PM

If you get a boner for hating on gay people, be more diligent about who you're doing business with. And if you enter into a contract with somebody and later choose to back out, be prepared to offer adequate compensation. Once again, this has nothing--NOTHING--with a church being asked to perform a wedding ceremony.

12/5/2007 10:20:30 PM

^spooky, I agree. However once a group is recognized it immediately opens it up for lawsuits. One cant sue a church to perform a gay marriage bc its banned.

it would be like you trying to sue me bc i wouldnt let you smoke crack in my house.

You are 100% correct on this statement I think: "I've said it before and I'll say it again, the root of the problem lies in the fact that one word--"marriage"--is used to define two things which are completely different: one, a personal commitment, and two, a legal commitment."

12/5/2007 10:24:24 PM

damn, that is a shady area. If one of the lezbos signed a contract with the church; then the church back off after finding out it was a homosexual marriage then i am not sure......

maybe let them use the facility but get their own "preacher" to perform the ceremony. This is not a new issue. Sounds like the church should have had it in its contract not allowing gay couples.

12/5/2007 10:32:26 PM

anyway, back to huckabee.

I really like the guy bc he supports the fair tax. (which is most important to me)

Although, i will admit, him being a minister causes some reservations. However, Ive seen him many times and I never knew that about him.

12/5/2007 10:42:11 PM

I really like him because he supports Young Earth Creationism.

12/5/2007 11:00:01 PM

i think thats one of the reasons i hate him

isnt that the one that says dinosaurs are only 6000 years old?

12/5/2007 11:01:09 PM

adam and eve had pet raptors dude

12/5/2007 11:17:40 PM

No, dinosaur bones were put there by the devil to tempt us.

12/5/2007 11:21:05 PM